“Really all we do is take fresh, false statements by Durham Herald Sun Editor Bob Ashley and add some truth. We prepare Bob’s statements just the way he makes them. Nothing artificial is ever added. It’s all natural Bob.

Then we pour our truth glaze - we use only facts - all over Bob and put him in a post. We let him simmer there until a customer orders. Then,‘voila!’ Bob’s ready for serving.”

KC made me promise not to give his recipe away but he said it was OK to tell you a little about the "ingredients" he picked from three NY Times columns. Here are samples. In once column, KC found this about Duke's Men's lacrosse team:

“When the children of privilege feel vividly alive only while victimizing, even torturing, we must all ask why.”

and in another Times’ column he found this about Duke's Women's lacrosse team:

“The lacrosse gals, 30 of 31 of whom are white, are apparently free to martyr their male lax mates.”

How do they sound?

Aren't those Times’ column comments just the kind of “ingredients” that leave Duke’s President Richard H. Brodhead and his trustees speechless?

At Right Angles chef Jon Ham is featuring something the Raleigh N&O's many readers and Bob Ashley’s Herald Sun's few readers have been demanding for a long time: straight news reporting. Here’s a sample:

It was inevitable, I guess, that the panel today at Duke Law School about the Duke lacrosse rape allegations would get around to discussing bloggers. Kudos to former Duke basketball star Jay Bilas of ESPN for bringing up the dreaded word about 20 minutes into the festivities.

After several journalists had described their approach to the story in its early days, Bilas said it was bloggers to whom he eventually turned for news on the case. “Some of these blogs have gained their own credibility,” he said.

Raleigh News & Observer managing editor John Drescher allowed as how blogs keep newspapers on their toes. “The bloggers are what’s different about this story,” he said. But he added: “My only real reservation is you really ought to have to identify yourself.” This was, in all likelihood, a reference to John In Carolina, a blogger who has been relentless in his criticism of the way the local papers have handled the story.

Friday, October 20, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

On March 5, 1946 Churchill delivered his famous “Iron Curtin” speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. To mark its 50th anniversary, the college invited one of Churchill’s successors as Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, to deliver a speech reflecting on its impact. Excerpts from Thatcher’s speech:

In due course, that speech bore rich fruit in the new institutions forged to strengthen the West against Stalin’s assault: The Marshall Plan laid the foundations for Europe’s postwar economic recovery. The Truman Doctrine made plain that America would resist communist subversion of democracy. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization mobilized America’s allies for mutual defense against the Soviet steamroller. And the European Coal and Steel Community, devised to help reconcile former European enemies, evolved over time into the European Community. […]

[But the initial] reaction, fifty years ago, to that earlier Fulton speech was swift, dramatic and, at first, highly critical. Indeed, to judge from the critics, you would have imagined that it was not Stalin but Winston Churchill who had drawn down the Iron Curtain.

But for all the immediate disharmony, it soon became evident that Fulton had struck a deeper chord. It resulted in a decisive shift in opinion: by May, the opinion polls recorded that 83 per cent of Americans now favoured the idea of a permanent alliance between the United States and Britain, which was subsequently broadened into NATO. By speaking as and when he did, Churchill guarded against a repetition of the withdrawal of America from Europe which, after 1919, allowed the instability to emerge that plunged the whole world—including America—into a second war. […

I plan to say more about the “Iron Curtin” speech in Monday’s post. You can read extended excerpts of the speech here.

The speech is quite long. However, for those of you who wish to read the entire speech, it’s here where you’ll also find a link to an audio of Churchill delivering it. (Real Player necessary)

Here’s Raleigh News & Observer Executive Editor for News Melanie Sill doing (subscription req'd) what she does so often: Tell readers what an ethical newspaper the N&O is, especially about how seriously it takes factual reporting.

We require reporters, photographers or other staff members who make mistakes to explain in writing what happened and what they will do to reduce the chance of further errors.

Managerially, we stress accuracy and use our performance reviews to set goals for progress. We take seriously any concerns about a staff member's reliability or credibility -- raised by colleagues, supervisors, sources or readers.

And here’s Editor Sill responding to readers who complained that in the N&O’s now discredited Mar. 25 interview story with the anonymous accuser the N&O repeatedly told readers she was the victim:

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] • http://www.newsobserver.com

10/12/06 at 09:24

A factual note: The much discussed interview with the woman referred to her as "the accuser" or "the woman who reported the rape." Not sure how this has been twisted otherwise.

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] • http://www.newsobserver.com 10/12/06 at 09:24A factual note: The much discussed interview with the woman referred to her as "the accuser" or "the woman who reported the rape." Not sure how this has been twisted otherwise.

“It is The News & Observer's policy not to identify the VICTIMS of sex crimes.”

”Jason Bissey, who was on his porch next door during the party, saw the VICTIM that night.”

“He [Bissey] recalled the racially charged statements at least one man was yelling at the VICTIM.”

“Addison, the police spokesman, said that between receiving the call and searching the house, police were interviewing the VICTIM, residents of the house and other witnesses.”

Melanie, I hope you weren’t wordsmithing in your comment; attempting to parse the interview portion of the article from the remainder of the article with four references to the woman as victim. That would imply that you were trying to be sneaky in your response.

Any of these references could have substituted “accuser” or “complainant”.

Please reply in the Editor’s Blog by explaining your comment above.

Brian

You’re not surprised to learn Editor Sill has never responded to Reader Bryan Johnston, would you?

Thursday, October 19, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

On July 14, 1940 Churchill spoke to the nation. Only six weeks before the British Expeditionary Force had barely escaped capture at Dunkirk. On July 10 the Battle of Britain – “upon which depends our survival” – had begun.

The public knew the air battle - already being fought in skies above the homes and towns of many of Churchill's listeners in the South of England – was the first step in Nazi Germany’s plan to invade and conquer Britain. Once the Germans had control of the skies, their invasion would follow.

As you would expect, Churchill’s words on July 14 were eloquent and inspiring. They also show him as a master psychologist who could inspire resolution and optimism even as he reminded people of the terrible ordeals and years which lay before them.

Excerpts :

This has been a great week for the Royal Air Force, and for the Fighter Command. They have shot down more than five to one of the German aircraft which have tried to molest our convoys in the Channel, or have ventured to cross the British coast line.

These are, of course, only the preliminary encounters to the great air battles which lie ahead. But I know of no reason why we should be discontented with the results so far achieved; although, of course, we hope to improve upon them as the fighting becomes more widespread and comes more inland.

Around all lies the power of the Royal Navy. With over a thousand armed ships under the White Ensign, patrolling the seas, the Navy, which is capable of transferring its force very readily to the protection of any part of the British Empire which may be threatened, is capable also of keeping open communication with the New World, from whom, as the struggle deepens, increasing aid will come.

Is it not remarkable that after ten months of unlimited U-boat and air attack upon our commerce, our food reserves are higher than they have ever been, and we have a substantially larger tonnage under our own flag, apart from great numbers of foreign ships in our control, than we had at the beginning of the war?

Why do I dwell on all this? Not, surely, to induce any slackening of effort or vigilance. On the contrary. These must be redoubled, and we must prepare not only for the summer, but for the winter; not only for 1941, but for 1942; when the war will, I trust, take a different form from the defensive, in which it has hitherto been bound.

I dwell on these elements in our strength, on these resources which we have mobilized and control-I dwell on them because it is right to show that the good cause can command the means of survival; and that while we toil through the dark valley we can see the sunlight on the uplands beyond.

____________________________________________________Excerpts from "War of the Unknown Warriors" speech found here at the Churchill Centre.

I was just watching a tape of Sen. Joe Lieberman’s recent news conference.

You may know Lieberman, who’s running as an Independent after losing the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary to Ned Lamont, has a strong lead over Lamont in most polls.

Not only is Lamont trailing in the polls, he’s having difficulty raising money. He’s been forced to pour some of his own mega-millions into his campaign to keep it afloat.

With mikes on and cameras rolling, Lieberman was reading from a prepared statement. He got to:

"We heard an awful lot in the Spring about Ned Lamont’s 'people powered campaign.' But [here Lieberman slowed his speech and emphasized his “p”s] his 'people powered campaign' appears to be petering out."

For many 60 Minutes’ viewers, the most riveting and shocking portions of last Sunday's Duke Hoax episode were those during which Professor James Coleman explained how Durham DA Mike Nifong and Durham Police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb violated the Durham Police Department’s own line-up ID procedures and how Ninfong pandered to "the community."

[Ed Bradley speaking first]: [Coleman] says this line-up broke one basic principle: there were no “filler” photos, no pictures of people not connected to the case.

The accuser only saw photos of lacrosse players who police told her were at the party.

"If she’s told all of these people who were considered suspects were at the party, so you pick three and we’ll indict those three," Coleman says.

"So she can’t make a mistake," Bradley remarks.

"Can’t make a mistake," Coleman replies.

Professor Coleman says the line-up ordered by the D.A. for the Duke lacrosse case violated local, state and federal guidelines.

Most sensible American's watching and listening to Coleman realized he was describing the frame-up of three Duke students by a DA pandering "to the community."

I thought readers whould be interested to learn how Duke's student newspaper, The Chronicle, reported the Coleman portions of the episode, especially if I compared The Chronicle's reporting with that of the area's major newspaper, The Raleigh News & Observer, whose Duke Hoax coverage one veteren journalist says "violated every bedrock principle of ethical journalism."

I compared two news stories Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle, published the day following the episode (Oct. 16) to the Raleigh News & Observer's 60 Minutes news story reported the same day.

As a "fair and accurate measure" of how the papers did, I compared their reporting to the Coleman portions of CBS 60’s transcript which you’ll find at the end of this post along with a link to the full transcript.

One Chronicle story noted the photo ID ordered by Nifong “violated local, state and federal guidelines.” The other Chronicle story reported Coleman said Nifong “pandered to the community.” So between the two stories the Chronicle got some of each of Coleman's principal points.

The N&O, which still editorially supports Nifong, told readers nothing about the ID violations or Nifong’s pandering.

I scored it:

CHRONICLE 2 – N&O 0

If you'd like to do your own scoring, there follows in 1,2, 3 and 4 order the portions of the three news stories reporting on Coleman, and then the Coleman portions of 60’s transcript.

Bradley also interviewed Duke law professor James Coleman, who decried the line-up used to bring charges against the three players.

Coleman, who chaired a University committee last Spring that investigated the lacrosse program, has been involved in establishing the North Carolina standards for line-up procedures.

"[Nifong] pandered to the community by saying, 'I'm going to go out there and defend your interests in seeing that these hooligans who committed the crimes are going to be prosecuted,'" he said. "I think in this case, it appears that this prosecutor has set out to develop whatever evidence he could to convict people he already concluded were guilty."

[Ed Bradley speaking:] 60 Minutes asked James Coleman, a prominent law professor at Duke University Law School who helped establish guidelines in North Carolina designed to protect against false identifications in police line-ups.

He says this line-up broke one basic principle: there were no “filler” photos, no pictures of people not connected to the case. The accuser only saw photos of lacrosse players who police told her were at the party.

"If she’s told all of these people who were considered suspects were at the party, so you pick three and we’ll indict those three," Coleman says.

"So she can’t make a mistake," Bradley remarks.

"Can’t make a mistake," Coleman replies.

Professor Coleman says the line-up ordered by the D.A. for the Duke lacrosse case violated local, state and federal guidelines. The D.A. has been quoted as saying that will be up to a judge to decide.

Asked why a district attorney would order a line-up that breaks virtually every rule in the book, Coleman says, "Well that's a good question for the D.A. But I assume that, you know after his initial performance, in this case, he needed to indict at least three players. And charge them with what he said was a rape that had occurred." […]

Brodhead formed a commission to investigate the behavior of the lacrosse team over the past five years, and he appointed Professor James Coleman to head it.

Coleman found that while many of the players drank alcohol excessively, they had no history of violent or racist behavior. Professor Coleman believes that the three indicted players are victims in this case – victims of an overzealous prosecutor who pandered to the black community in the middle of an election campaign.

"I think that he pandered to the community by saying 'I'm gonna go out there and defend your interests in seeing that these hooligans who committed the crime are prosecuted. I'm not gonna let their fathers, with all of their money, buy you know big-time lawyers and get them off. I'm doing this for you.' You know, what are you to conclude about a prosecutor who says to you, 'I'll do whatever it takes to get this set of defendants?' What does it say about what he's willing to do to get poor black defendants," Coleman asks.

Asked if he thinks the D.A. committed prosecutorial misconduct, Coleman says, "Yes, I mean I think that’s the whole point. And if this case resulted in a conviction, I think there would be a basis to have the conviction overturned based on his conduct. I think in this case, it appears that this prosecutor has set out to develop whatever evidence he could to convict people he already concluded were guilty." […]

FODU offers commentary; an excellent media links page updated sometimes two or three times a day; and message boards that contain almost entirely civil, informed comments and questions and support statements for the real victims of the hoax.

FODU has published some of the profiles in writer Joan Collins’ outstanding Profile in Courage series.

One of Joan profiles is below. I hope it tempts you to visit FODU.

(Disclosure: FODU sometimes links to me. But it’s a great site anyway.)

Profile in Courage : Moezeldin Elmostafa

Previously I have written about Dave Evans, one of the three indicted Duke students and Kerstin Kimel, Duke’s Women’s lacrosse coach. They remind us that amid the darkness of the Duke Lacrosse Case, some true heroes have emerged.

Today I want to tell you about a seemingly ordinary man whose actions in extraordinary circumstances are a profile in courage.

You may recall Moezeldin Elmostafa. He's the cab driver caught in the cross fire of DA Nifong’s indictment of Reade Seligmann. Elmostafa picked up Seligmann and his friend, Rob Wellington, when they left the party the night of Mar. 13/14.

Elmostafa drove the two students to a Wachovia ATM machine where a video camera recorded Seligmann using the machine. From there, Elmostafa drove Seligmann and Wellington to “Cook Out,”a fast-food restaurant, and from there to their dorms on Duke’s West Campus.

Elmostafa's recollections of the evening along with his cab pickup and fare records are important parts of the evidence that proves Reade Seligmann could not have committed the crimes for which a rogue DA Nifong had him indicted. Elmostafa signed an affidavit describing his recollections of the evening.

Up to this point, it would seem to most Americans that Elmostafa had done nothing more than what any good citizen should do.

So where is the courage?

We began to see it on May 11, 2006 when Elmostafa was arrested on an almost 3-year-old warrant for larceny. Historian Robert KC Johnson observed :

” Nifong's office has repeatedly denied any connection between the arrest and the lacrosse case. Yet the notes of [Durham Police] Inv. B.W. Himan revealed … that ‘Mr. Nifong wanted to know when we picked [Elmostafa] up.’ This note enhances the credibility of Elmostafa's claim that when Inv. R.D. Clayton picked him up, ‘The detective asked if I had anything new to say about the lacrosse case. When I said no, they took me to the magistrate.’”

The larceny charge related to Elmostafa picking up a passenger, driving her to the mall, and then driving her home. Shortly thereafter, he was contacted by store security who informed him that his passenger had shoplifted five purses totaling about $250.

Elmostafa assisted security by providing his passenger’s address and his own driver’s license. Store security thanked him for his help and he never thought about it again. The passenger, Lisa Faye Hawkins, a woman with a record of 127 arrests, pleaded guilty about three months later.

Elmostafa was represented by attorney Thomas Loflin, who called the larceny charges “entirely frivolous”. Loflin said, "It was striking that two principal investigators in the lacrosse case served the warrant instead of one uniformed officer.”

According to Loflin, detectives don't serve warrants unless it involves a murder charge or some other very serious felony. Loflin added, "This is the first case I know of where that has happened, in Durham at least.”

Elmostafa was acquitted of all charges on August 29, 2006. During the trial, two police investigators in the Duke Lacrosse case sat in the courtroom. They never explained why they were there.

Throughout this travesty known as the Duke Lacrosse case, some ‘fantastic lies’ have been told and unraveled. In recalling the events of that evening, Elmostafa never wavered. Perhaps he followed Mark Twain’s advice “Always tell the truth; that way you don't have to remember what you said.”

Elmostafa bravely stood up to Durham’s high stakes game of ‘Truth or Consequences,’ and in doing so he risked everything. He was arrested, incurred legal expenses, spent five hours in jail, and had his picture and name on the news and in the press. All of this for a total stranger.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

Elmostafa refused to remain silent about something that mattered, even in the face of risk to himself. He showed himself to be a person of integrity and courage.

Courage transcends gender, race, nationality, and social status. It’s deep within all of us, waiting for a critical moment when we’ll act as Elmostafa did when threatened and abused by those sworn to protect him.

Reader's Note: In the post below Tom Bevan says Duke's President Richard H. Brodhead expelled members of the Duke lacrosse team "from the University without giving them so much as a chance to defend themselves and prove their innocence is reprehensible and unforgivable."

That statement is wrong. No Duke lacrosse student was expelled as a result of the party.

I should have caught Bevan's error before including it in my post.

Bevan's an outstanding blogger who I'm confident would have corrected the error had I called it to his attention. I plan to do that as soon as I finish this note.

I plan to also email President Brodhead and apologize to him for publishing the false statement.

I'll also be letting readers know what happened in a separate post which will include a thank you to those readers who called the mistake to my attention.

Look for a post later this evening or tomorrow (Blogger is going "on and off" right now) with a title such as "My mistake - I apologize"

I apologize to any of you who were misled by my error.

Excepting the unintentionally false statement, I stand by everything else in Tom's post and mine.

John___________________________

I've sent an email to Tom Bevan noting the error. I'll let you know his response.

I've sent an email to President Brodhead with a cc to John Burness, Duke Senior VP for Public Affairs and Government Relations. I offered Brodhead my apology for an unintentional error and asked him if there's anything he or Burness thinks I should do to correct my error beyond what I've done.

Fulsome thanks to the two reader/commenters who called the error to my attention. They helped me. They also demonstrated the corrective power of the blogoshpere.

To any of you I misled, I'm very sorry. I'll work to be more alert in the future.

John____________________________________

Update on 10/19 at 10;35 am EDT: Tom Bevan has published a correction for the error which he says was "significant." He's apologized. That said, Tom stands by the rest of his post.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

If you were to pick words to describe Churchill, one of the last would surely be "passive." Churchill didn't care for passivity in himself, and his biographer Martin Gilbert tells us he refused to accept it from his generals :

Anything that smacked of passivity on the part of his army commanders incurred Churchill's wrath. Learning at the beginning of November 1941 that nothing "large" was being planned against the German and Italian forces in the Western Desert by [General] Wavell's successor, Churchill wrote to his former Boer War adversary, General Smuts, then a respected voice in Allied military circles: "I dread the idea of this long delay when, as we know for certain, the enemy is hard pressed for supplies and would be greatly embarrassed by making exertions."

He continued: "In war one cannot wait to have everything perfect, but must fight in relation to the enemy's strength and plight. I am appalled at the proposal to remain passive all this time, when the golden opportunity many be lost."

Later, Churchill was to summarize this failing in a terse comment: "The maxim 'Nothing avails but perfection' may be spelt shorter - 'Paralysis.'"

The passages I just quoted are found on pg. 56 of Gilbert's book describing Churchill's war leadership which, most appropriately for the passages we've just read, is titled Continue to Pester, Nag and Bite.

Reader's Note: In the post below Tom Bevan says Duke's President Richard H. Brodhead expelled members of the Duke lacrosse team "from the University without giving them so much as a chance to defend themselves and prove their innocence is reprehensible and unforgivable."

That statement is wrong. No Duke lacrosse student was expelled as a result of the party.

I should have caught Bevan's error before including it in my post.

Bevan's an outstanding blogger who I'm confident would have corrected the error had I called it to his attention. I plan to do that as soon as I finish this note.

I plan to also email President Brodhead and apologize to him for publishing the false statement.

I'll also be letting readers know what happened in a separate post which will include a thank you to those readers who called the mistake to my attention.

Look for a post later this evening or tomorrow (Blogger is going "on and off" right now) with a title such as "My mistake - I apologize"

I apologize to any of you who were misled by my error.

Excepting the unintentionally false statement, I stand by everything else in Tom's post and mine.

John

Updated on 10/19 @ 10:40 am EDT: Tom Bevan has published a correction and apologized for what he calls a "significant" error. That said, he stands by the rest of his post._________________________________________

In case you weren't aware, on Saturday the University of Miami football team got into a hellacious on-field brawl during the middle of its game against Florida International University (you can see it all here on YouTube).

Despite the nastiness of the episode, which resulted in the suspension of 13 Miami players (and another 18 from FIU), Donna Shalala, the former head of HHS who is now President of the University of Miami, appeared at a team press conference to defend her students:

''I believe that the young men we have recruited for our football team are young men of great character, but they did a very bad thing,'' Shalala said. ". . .

"It's time for me to say publicly that I believe in them, that I believe that they did something awful, but that I want them to continue at the University of Miami.

And it's time for me to say to the community and to those that have been sending me e-mails that this university will be firm and punish people that do bad things.

But we will not throw any student under the bus for instant restoration of our image or our reputation. I will not hang them in a public square. I will not eliminate their participation at the university. I will not take away their scholarships" . . .

If only the President of Duke University, Richard Brodhead, had said something similar in the aftermath of the affair with the lacrosse team.

Clearly, what happened in Miami is vastly different than a he said-she said rape allegation, but Broadhead's knee-jerk reaction to believe the word of a stripper over his students, to cancel the season and expel members of the team from the University without giving them so much as a chance to defend themselves and prove their innocence is reprehensible and unforgivable.

As we've seen from watching the course of the investigation, it's looking more and more like three boys have had their lives destroyed by a false allegation put into the hands of an irresponsible and abusive prosecutor.

Duke's President shares the blame - and the shame - for the way this case has gone by throwing these kids under the bus right from the start.

If you’re not sure what Tom Bevan means by “throwing these kids under the bus right from the start” read these two prepared public statements Brodhead released on March 25 and April 5.

When you read Brodhead's statements keep in mind that at the time he made them Brodhead knew of the extraordinary cooperation the three lacrosse captains who rented the house where the party was held had provided police on March 16 when they came to the house with a search warrent.

That cooperation included voluntarily answering questions, providing signed statements, going to Duke Hospital and voluntarily submitting to rape-kit testing, offering to take polygraph tests and helping police identify and locate others who were at the party.

Also keep in mind that Brodhead knew when he issued his statements that all 46 of the lacrosse players ordered to submit to DNA testing had a right to appeal the order. But not a single player did, including those who weren’t even in Durham the night the hoaxer and those who’ve framed the players claim she was gang-raped.

Brodhead also knew the players, his students, were the victims of many false and malicious statements that had appeared in the Raleigh News & Observer, which “broke” the story on Mar. 24 ( Examples: In its Mar. 24 front-page story, the N&O seven times told readers the accuser was “the victim” or used the possessive “the victim’s” without any qualification such as “alleged.” The N&O’s now discredited Mar. 25 story spoke of the players silence and refusal to cooperate with police, something the public believed at the time but which Brodhead knew to be false.)

Try to find in either of Brodhead’s statements any mention of what I just told you.

Ask yourself why Brodhead refused on March 25 to meet with the lacrosse players' parents who were on campus that day for a home game.

Why hasn’t he met with the parents since?

Disclosures: Brodhead has repeatedly said his treatment of the players has been "very fair."

He doesn’t answer the questions I’ve raised here. Instead, he urges people to stop “dwelling in the past.” He wants everyone “to look to the future.”

The Duke trustees and the officers and directors of the Duke Alumni Association have been unanimous in their public support of Brodhead.

Many individual alums don’t support Brodhead’s actions in response to the hoax. We're appalled that he refuses even now to speak out against the investigative and legal travesties of Durham DA Mike Nifong and some Durham police.

As you surely know, I’m one of those alums. I hold two degrees from Duke.

Sill's mad at readers for asking why the N&O still refuses to publish accusations the woman it called "the victim" made during a March interview about the "second dancer."

Sill can't understand why readers aren't satisfied that the N&O told them in its now discredited March 25 story everything the accuser said about the Duke lacrosse players that could inflame public opinion against them, endanger their lives and play race against race.

She thinks that was enough for readers. She's called what the N&O did "good reporting" and repeatedly told readers she's "proud" of it.

Sill wants the N&O to continue hiding from readers what the accuser said about the second dancer.

Who's the N&O covering up for. Sill refuses to say: "[We will not be] hounded into publishing something (or not publishing something) because someone pressures us." (Here at 18:09)

Sill’s also angry at readers for asking on what date the N&O first learned of the lacrosse captains’ extensive cooperation with the police; and on what date and in what detail did the N&O first report the captains' cooperation to readers.

That pair of questions have been asked for months and have always been greeted with public silence by Sill and other N&O staffers.

They're all easy questions for an honest editor, aren't they?

Well, if Sill is angry and feels "hounded" by readers asking questions they have every right to ask – questions they never should have needed to ask in the first place – wait until she finds out what readers are doing now at this Editors' Blog post.

They’re telling Sill how to run the paper and who she should hire.

On the thread one reader says: “As an antidote to you people in the Drive By Media, Mr. K. C. Johnson of the blog Durham-In-Wonderland … has been invited by the Duke ACLU to speak [at Duke] on 10/26.

You all might send some reporters to interview him and learn what's new in the Duke Hoax Case..."

That reader's comment is followed by another reader who thinks the first reader’s suggestion is “splendid.”

The second reader continues: “Let me also suggest that all N&O reporters, columnists and editors … that work on the Duke Hoax, have KC Johnson’s column as a daily 'must read.' The wealth of information garnered from Professor Johnson’s columns would, I assure you, be educational and eye opening.

At a minimum, reading Professor Johnson’s column would educate your reporters and columnists to the extent they would know when they have been presented with a wealth of 'new information and evidence.'

As a side note, I was astonished and dismayed that Anne Blythe, Ruth Sheehan and Barry Saunders were unable to garner much new information or evidence from the Oct 15 60 Minutes coverage of the Hoax. It simply highlights your reporters/columnists lack of knowledge and education with regard to the intricacies and nuances of the Hoax.

The 60 Minutes piece contained a wealth of new information and evidence for any educated, discerning viewer."

Both readers are right, of course. But Melanie won't like what they say anyway.

Melanie and the other liberal/leftist journalists on the N&O’s News Suppression Team have done everything they can to keep Johnson’s reporting and commentary out of the N&O.

But since I’m an optimist, I’m going to try to change Melanie's mind.

I’m leaving the following comment at EB on the same thread as the comments by the two readers trying to help the N&O. __________________________________________

Dear Melanie,

KC Johnson an N&O news columnist? What a wonderful idea.

Below is a sample of KC’s reporting. It’s part of a Q&A email interview KC conducted with Duke Law School Professor Edwin Chemerinsky concerning Chemerinsky’s assessment of DA Mike Nifong’s Duke Hoax conduct.

KC published the interview Aug. 23. You can read his article here.

Of course, you know a great deal about Chemerinsky. But for those who’ll read this and don’t, can we agree he’s arguably America’s leading liberal oriented law scholar, a defender of the rights’ of the accused, and regarded as a likely U. S. Supreme nominee if the Democrats recapture The White House in ’08?

Also, I know you’ll tell readers that a month or so before KC published his Chemerinsky interview, the N&O published a 1400 word fawning story on Chemerinsky ( "Duke law prof has pick of high-profile cases").

You told readers his views on many legal issues and cases, including a case he was working on at the time.

But your story, by Anne Blythe (She co-bylined the Mar. 24 and 25 stories framing the Duke players as victimizers, remember?) never said word one about Chemerinsky's assessment of Nifong. It didn't even mention the Duke lacrosse case.

There was plenty of “room” in the story for Blythe and the N&O to gush that “the defender of the rights of the accused” was a Chicago Cubs fan who still fantasized about playing shortstop for them. But nothing about what Chemerinsky thought of Nifong’s conduct.

It took KC to do that.

That’s just one reason why fair-minded, intelligent people think you ought to hire him and run his column daily.

Now to the sample portion of KC's Chemerinsky interview:

Question: I’ve been troubled by commentators (such as Andrew Cohen) or local editorialists (such as Bob Ashley) who have implied that even if Nifong blatantly violated procedures to secure the indictments, the “process” requires the case going to trial and being decided by a jury.

Do you share this view? Are there ways in which the media, or the academy, should be considering the procedural matters this case has raised absent the “facts” that would be determined at trial?

Chemerinsky: Of course, the process does not require that the case go to the jury. The prosecutor should take the case to the jury only if there are facts to warrant it.

As to the process, Susan Estrich had a wonderful essay about two weeks ago about its many flaws.

[Indeed, that Estrich essay notes, “If the discovery is any indication, [Nifong’s] case is sitting on quicksand . . . at the very least, standard procedure should have been to await the results of tests, and then, given the results, the inconsistencies in the woman’s statements, the fact that at least one of the boys seems to have an airtight alibi, investigate further before indicting anyone.” Instead, the USC law professor noted, Nifong demonstrated “a failure to follow standard procedure that is rather mind-boggling.”]

Question: I’m unaware of any case in the past 15-20 years where this extent of procedurally irregular behavior was widely known by the public at this stage of the process. (Obviously, we’ve seen worse prosecutorial misconduct than what Nifong has done, though the evidence usually doesn’t become apparent until post-appellate review.)

Are you aware of comparable cases, either from your time in LA or since you arrived in North Carolina, where a prosecutor first assumed control of a police investigation and then disregarded multiple standard procedures in order to secure indictments?

Chemerinsky: I can’t think of any in such a high profile case.(bold added)

Readers’ Note: If you're familiar with the portions of last Sunday’s 60 Minutes Duke Nifong episode that involved Professor Coleman, you may want to skip the transcript portions below and go down to where the star line ******** begins.

[Ed Bradley speaking:] 60 Minutes asked James Coleman, a prominent law professor at Duke University Law School who helped establish guidelines in North Carolina designed to protect against false identifications in police line-ups.

He says this line-up broke one basic principle: there were no “filler” photos, no pictures of people not connected to the case. The accuser only saw photos of lacrosse players who police told her were at the party.

"If she’s told all of these people who were considered suspects were at the party, so you pick three and we’ll indict those three," Coleman says.

"So she can’t make a mistake," Bradley remarks.

"Can’t make a mistake," Coleman replies.

Professor Coleman says the line-up ordered by the D.A. for the Duke lacrosse case violated local, state and federal guidelines. The D.A. has been quoted as saying that will be up to a judge to decide.

Asked why a district attorney would order a line-up that breaks virtually every rule in the book, Coleman says, "Well that's a good question for the D.A. But I assume that, you know after his initial performance, in this case, he needed to indict at least three players. And charge them with what he said was a rape that had occurred." […]

Brodhead formed a commission to investigate the behavior of the lacrosse team over the past five years, and he appointed Professor James Coleman to head it.

Coleman found that while many of the players drank alcohol excessively, they had no history of violent or racist behavior. Professor Coleman believes that the three indicted players are victims in this case – victims of an overzealous prosecutor who pandered to the black community in the middle of an election campaign.

"I think that he pandered to the community by saying 'I'm gonna go out there and defend your interests in seeing that these hooligans who committed the crime are prosecuted. I'm not gonna let their fathers, with all of their money, buy you know big-time lawyers and get them off. I'm doing this for you.' You know, what are you to conclude about a prosecutor who says to you, 'I'll do whatever it takes to get this set of defendants?' What does it say about what he's willing to do to get poor black defendants," Coleman asks.

Asked if he thinks the D.A. committed prosecutorial misconduct, Coleman says, "Yes, I mean I think that’s the whole point. And if this case resulted in a conviction, I think there would be a basis to have the conviction overturned based on his conduct. I think in this case, it appears that this prosecutor has set out to develop whatever evidence he could to convict people he already concluded were guilty." […]*****************************************************************************************************OK, there are the Professor Coleman portions of 60's episode.

But what about the Raleigh News & Observer which framed the players in the public’s mind before Nifong ever spoke publicly about the case or completed the indictment phase of his frame-up?

During the segment, James Coleman, a Duke University law professor, said he thought Nifong had committed prosecutorial misconduct by speaking out before charges were filed.

"If this case resulted in a conviction, I think there would be a basis to have the conviction thrown out based on misconduct," Coleman said.

That’s all the N&O “reports” about Coleman.

And that little bit is false.

Reporter Anne Blythe (co-bylined on the Mar. 24 and 25 stories) and her editors mislead readers with

"Coleman … said he thought Nifong had committed prosecutorial misconduct by speaking out before charges were filed."

That’s something Coleman may believe but he didn’t say it in the episode and Bradley didn’t report he said it to him.

Bradley did report: “Professor Coleman says the line-up ordered by the D.A. for the Duke lacrosse case violated local, state and federal guidelines.” […]

The N&O, of course, had to leave that out or it’s falsehood wouldn’t fool most people.

The N&O also had to leave out of its story the portions of Coleman’s statement in bold:

Asked if he thinks the D.A. committed prosecutorial misconduct, Coleman says, "Yes, I mean I think that’s the whole point. And if this case resulted in a conviction, I think there would be a basis to have the conviction overturned based on his conduct.I think in this case, it appears that this prosecutor has set out to develop whatever evidence he could to convict people he already concluded were guilty.

Why didn't the N&O report Coleman believes Nifong set out to “develop whatever evidence he could to convict people he already concluded were guilty?”

Why did the N&O instead create a falsehood?

I think because Coleman is so obviously describing a frame-up.

What do you think?

And why do you think the N&O left out of its story every other thing Coleman said or Bradley reported he said?

The discussion and illustrations of the Nifong/Gottlieb “no wrong answers ID” travesty, such an important part of their frame-up, were among the most critical parts of the episode. Why’d the N&O make no mention of them?

And why no mention of Coleman’s saying Nifong “pandered to the community?”

I'll send this post on to Reporter Anne Blythe, Executive Editor for News Melanie Sill and Public Editor Ted Vaden. I'll invite their comments and let you know if I hear anything back.

The charges against the Duke lacrosse players should be dropped immediately, and the people demanding the dismissal the loudest and most forcefully should be the very people who have made a living allegedly fighting against racial injustice.

I've said this before, but it's worth saying again: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton should be in Durham, N.C., today, promising civil disobedience until the charges are dropped and prosecutor Mike Nifong resigns.

Ed Bradley and "60 Minutes" should never be mistaken for Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court. Bradley is just a TV reporter and "60 Minutes" is just a TV show, but you couldn't help but be moved by the story they aired Sunday night about the Duke lacrosse rape allegations.

What follows is a well-written, carefully reasoned summary of some of the facts that make it clear three innocent people have been wrongly indicted.

Standing up for Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans would be standing up against injustice, and what we're learning is that injustice recognizes opportunity more than color. In America, there is more opportunity for injustice to visit poor people of color. Their best defense is standing against all injustice, regardless of race.

That closing paragraph is wise. It tells us a lot about America today. And it points us in the direction of a more just America.

Monday, October 16, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Propaganda today.

We’ve looked at Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s relationship through their words and the words of Eleanor Roosevelt as well as the writings of many of their principal aides and a good many historians.

But we’ve never looked at their relationship from a Nazi point of view. We do now, ever so briefly.

The link that follows will take you to a Nazi propaganda cartoon meant for German consumption. There's a good explanation of the background and purpose of the cartoon. It’s here.

“We got the woman identified as the victim and interviewed her. As Linda notes, it wasn't an extensive or extensively planned interview -- it was boots on the street hustle to track down the key players.”

1 - In the Durham community with 250,000 people, “boots on the street” didn’t lead you to the accuser. Someone who knew who she was and where she was led you to her either directly or with address information. Most likely the person(s) was someone who could reach the accuser quickly and “arrange” for the interview. Who was that person(s)?

2 - What was that person’s motive for leading your reporter to the accuser?

3 - Was that person a member of either the Durham Police Department (I include as a member of the DPD Cpl. David Addison who, while assigned full-time to CrimeStoppers, is a sworn DPD officer) or the Durham District Attorney’s office, including DA Nifong?

4 - Was the interview audio taped, which is common practice with an interview of such critical importance, especially as what was said could be relevant to a then ongoing police investigation and possible subsequent indictments and trials?

5 - If the interview was audio taped, what can you tell us about the custody and condition of the tape; and whether there is anything about the technical nature of the tape that would prevent you from releasing it to the public with only the accuser and her family’s IDs removed?

6 - If the interview was not audio taped, why not?

7 - You say you didn’t publish those parts of the interview that concerned remarks made by the accuser about the second dancer, Kim Roberts, because the remarks were unsubstantiated. But as many readers on this thread have demonstrated, you published a great number of unsubstantiated statements you say the accuser made about the lacrosse players.

Whose interests are you serving by refusing to inform the public of the parts of the interview you suppressed on Mar. 25?

8 - On what day did the N&O first learn of the extensive, voluntary cooperation the three Duke lacrosse captains provided police on Mar. 16, including signed statements, going to DUMC for “rape kit” testing, helping police ID and locate others who were at the party, etc?

9 - On what day and in what detail did the N&O report to readers the cooperation the captains provided the police and the fact that the court order for 46 lacrosse players to submit to DNA testing and “mug photos” could have been appealed, but that not a single one of the 46 exercised his right of appeal (not even the ones who weren’t in Durham the night of the party)?

10 - What’s your definition of news suppression?

Yes, Melanie, some of the questions are ones I first asked month ago. But you haven’t answered them. It’s time you did.

Sixty made very effective use of graphics and close ups to hammer its "innocent" message.

Something I think many media critics may miss: Sure, 60 left Kim on there more than many of us would have liked. But by doing so 60, intentionally or not, allowed Kim to reveal herself in all her "what’s in it for me?" story changing glory.

What a contrast to David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann who came across as intelligent, sincere, and with only one story to tell: the truth.

Aside from the impact of what the players said, the episode’s most powerful statements were provided by Professor Coleman and the graphics 60 used to support what he was saying.

When interviewing Coleman, Bradley did just what interviewers should do: He asked informed questions to draw his subject out. Come to think of it, he did that throughout the episode. Hats off to Bradley.

I think 60 and Bradley gave Brodhead “a pass.” It was the weakest part of the program. More about that tomorrow afternoon.

I had a lot right but missed in saying 60 would expose some of the enablers besides Nifong, Gottlieb and Co. I was also wrong when I said 60 would expose Brodhead as a principal enabler.

As for the brief tape of the Raleigh News & Observer's favorite young mother doing her bar-top dance about the time Sgt. Gottlieb said she has trouble sitting, it added the exclamation point to what 60 was saying from moment one: false statements and frame-ups.

Last thought for tonight: Weren’t there three seperate references in the episode to the disregard of standard federal Dept. of Justice procedures or some other matter that should interest the feds?

Hmmm.

I’m looking forward to hearing what you think about all of this.

Come tomorrow, if all goes well, I’ll get back to work.

When you close your eyes tonight remember: millions more now know they’re innocent. That’s what got done tonight.

Once that's up, I'll come to the comment thread here and start taking the comments and putting them here on the main page.

If a comment's more than 200 words, I'll pick what looks like the "money" part of it and post that, unless the commenter asks that I not, in which case I'll leave the comment on the thread.

I'll be checking the thread until 11 pm EDT.

John

Michael said...

Part I is a strong set up (versus a setup) for Part II. Sounds like the second segment will be where Bradley discusses those who haven't let facts get in their way... I promise to have an open, though not empty, mind while watching. 7:53 PM

Michael said...

Here's my initial take:

1) I was left wanting more, but

2) the piece definitely showed that the three young men have almost certainly (oh, hell, be bold, have definitely) been railroaded by an electioneering ass.

3) It has been too long since I have seen Mr. Evans, Finnerty, or Seligmann "live," and that was an important reinforcement of the fact that three very real young people are caught up in this debacle.

I do wish there had been more about the media's coverage, and I wish there had been more about the faculty and administration response. I am glad Professor Coleman was prominently featured, specifically because he had a part in creating the very rules that Nifong broke AND he was charged with thoroughly investigating the team and has come out in favor of Nifong's removal from the case.

On a minor note, I did enjoy the shots of Nifong strolling along with his fast-food soda. Not sure why, but it paints an even less professional picture of him than he paints for himself...

MOre later - Michael 8:16 PM Anonymous said...

The most shocking revelation was that the false accuser was back in the clubs pole dancing two weeks after the non-rape. Didn't Gottlieb write in his 33 pages of memory that she was too physically beat up to sit properly? What a dirt bag he is. And, Nifong said she was too tramatized on 4/11. OMG! What a liar!!!!!

Coleman was fantastic. He spoke from such a base of knowledge and principle. He was fantastic!!!! What a great man. Not because I agree with him, but because he so perfectly summed up why Nifong is so dangerous. 8:47 PM

Anonymous said...

As some have said earlier, who would you rather have as Duke president, Brodhead or Coleman? 8:57 PM

Anonymous said...

Brodhead was pathetic.. Why didn't he just dodge the interview? A "night of unacceptable behavior..." 9:17 PM

Anonymous said...

According to an AP story quoting Cheshire, the defense team provided the tape of Precious dancing 2 weeks after the alleged rape. They must have some serious detectives on her butt. Question. Why didn't the DPD know about the performances? Oh yeah - they don't seek evidence. I forgot.

You can bet the defense has even more. I wonder if she is still active in other ways. Ugh!

The fact that she kept returning to the hospital for rape-related injuries indicates to me that she is after money. It will be a cold day in hell before she'll get anything except a lawsuit out of the families.

IMPORTANT I read on talkleft that there will be another installment on 60 Min. next week. Can that be true? There is more to cover.

All in all, I think Bradley did a great job. I am also much more aware of how corrupt a DA can be and how black poor people can be wrongly prosecuted. I will be much more skeptical of all prosecutions in the future. Coleman is right; if it can happen to these guys, it can happen to anyone.

Final thought: I think the 60 Min. editors did a good job of not getting off topic. They didn't chase after the prosecution of the taxi drive or mention Nifong's emotional outbursts. That's ok. The piece is solid journalism.

Final final thought: the 3 guys did well for themselves. RS is very charsimatic and Evans appears mature beyond his years. CF came across very honest and likable. His comments were also very mature. They don's have any sense of self importance or entitlement that I see. They are all extremely likable and they certainly look and act like normal 20 year olds. Compare their poise to the bafoon Nifong with his smirks. They make this real. Nifong makes it unbelievable, which in many ways it is.

(Note: The 200 word limit was waived because I'm very tired and don't want to edit now.

The atory by Sarah Baxter is worth a read. It’s self-described as Romney’s “first interview with a British newspaper,” but it's also a critical profile.

Excerpts:

In an essential rite of passage for American politicians, Mitt Romney was ushered into the presence of Baroness Thatcher at a Washington think tank last month. If not quite an official anointing, the handshake and chat with so venerable a figure was an unmistakable sign to conservatives that he was “one of us”.

The improbably handsome right-wing governor of left-wing Massachusetts is generating enormous buzz as the conservative with the best chance of beating the independent-minded Senator John McCain for the 2008 Republican nomination. When his term in office expires in January, Romney is expected to throw himself helter-skelter into the presidential race. […]

Romney looks like a taller version of Martin Sheen in The West Wing, has been married to his high school sweetheart for 37 years and has five photogenic children. At 59 he is no youngster but is frequently ribbed about his film star appearance. “My wife and I know better. She’s the one with the looks in the family,” he joked.

He would be straight out of central casting were it not for one startling drawback: Romney is a Mormon, a religion some evangelical Christians regard with disdain. In a potential double whammy, he also speaks French (a source of ridicule for the 2004 Democratic candidate John Kerry), having been a Mormon missionary as a young man in France.

Romney, who already has a fan club called Evangelicals for Mitt, thinks the religious issue will fizzle. “People used to wonder whether a divorced actor could be elected,” he said, referring to Ronald Reagan, “or whether a Mormon could win Massachusetts, a state that is 55% Catholic.

“There was probably a time when people cared which church you went to, but that’s past. People today look to see a person’s faith in the way they live in their home with their family.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints outlawed polygamy long ago. But as one wag has noted, in a 2008 Republican field consisting of McCain, Rudolph Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, the only man who has had one wife would be the Mormon.

Her story is well-written and informative. Here’s my favorite paragraph:

Romney is pioneering a market-based system for universal healthcare in his home state that he believes easily trumps Hillary Clinton’s botched proposal when she was first lady. “The first difference between hers and mine is that mine got voted in,” he said tartly.

I’m not sure how “tartly” Romney made his remark, but it’s sure catches your attention, doesn’t it? It’s a wonderful stump speech line. Or maybe Romney will decide to save it for use in a presidential debate with Clinton

If you see a Romney profile and/or interview in The Guardian, please let me know. I’ll post on it.